By Traci Watson, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — New forests would spread across the American landscape, replacing both pasture and farm fields, under a congressional plan to confront climate change, an Environmental Protection Agency analysis shows.
About 18 million acres of new trees — roughly the size of West Virginia — would be planted by 2020, according to an EPA analysis of a climate bill passed by the House of Representatives in June.
That's because the House bill gives financial incentives to farmers and ranchers to plant trees, which suck in large amounts of the key global-warming gas: carbon dioxide.
The forestation effort would be even larger than one carried out by the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression, says the U.S. Forest Service's Ralph Alig. The CCC, which lasted from 1933 to 1942, planted 3 billion trees, says the Civilian Conservation Corps Legacy, an alumni group for workers and family members.
The environmental benefits are clear. More trees would not only lower carbon dioxide levels, but they would improve water quality, because they need lower levels of pesticides and fertilizers, says agricultural economist Bruce McCarl of Texas A&M University, who contributed to the EPA analysis.
The plan would, however, be hard on ranchers and farmers and potentially food prices, says American Farm Bureau chief economist Bob Young.
In the Senate, which is likely to consider a similar bill this fall, there are some who worry the loss of farmland would lead to increases in food prices worse than those seen in mid-2007, when costs spiked 7% to 8% above 2006 levels.
If those food prices seemed high, "wait till you start moving agricultural acres into climate-change areas," warns Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., Agriculture secretary for President George W. Bush.
McCarl says food costs would stay roughly the same.
The latest EPA analysis does not say where the farmland would be lost. However, an EPA study done in 2005 that analyzed climate-change policies similar to the House bill found that trees would overgrow farms primarily in three areas:
•Great Lake states: Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
•The Southeast: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.
•The Corn Belt: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri and Ohio.
Forests once grew there, says study author Brian Murray of Duke University, so trees would sprout quickly in those areas if farmers got financial incentives. The House climate bill would allow landowners who reduce carbon dioxide to sell carbon permits to polluters, such as power plants.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack last week hailed the possibility that climate-change action could help forests. "We have our own deforestation problem right here in the U.S. of A," he said. "Just keeping forest as forest is a significant challenge."
Roughly 1 million acres of forests every year were flattened to make way for homes and other development in the 1990s, Alig says. Without a climate bill, a net total 26 million acres of forest will be lost to development by 2050, he says.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Forest Carbon Incentives Program
August 07, 2009
Earlier this week, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) introduced legislation that would establish a system of incentive payments to qualifying forest-land owners who create permanent conservation easements or agree to undertake certain forest-management techniques to maximize the amount of carbon sequestered by their trees.
In introducing the bill, Sen. Shaheen pointed out that NH is the second most forested state in the nation (Maine is the first) and noted that while large forest owners have the opportunity to achieve carbon offset goals by participating in carbon offset markets, family and smaller landowners usually lack the efficiencies of scale to handle the substantial transactional costs that go along with market participation. (For example, the Chicago Climate Exchange requires forestry management offset projects to go through a forestry management practice certification process and to quantify annual carbon sequestration through modeling or annual inventory.)
According to Sen. Shaheen, if conserved and managed properly, our forests could capture up to 20% of US carbon emissions, so it makes sense to provide some incentives to property owners to do so. And since more than half of private forestland is privately owned in parcels of 100 acres or less, it makes sense to provide incentives to small property owners. (New Hampshire law affords a similar incentive to small renewable energy generators by allowing behind-the-meter renewable generation--and even solar hot water heaters--to generate RECs, starting in 2010.)
Whether Sen. Shaheen’s bill ultimately succeeds is anyone’s guess, though it has garnered the support of a broad spectrum of organizations, from conservation organizations like the Trust for Public Land to timber industry organizations like the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association. But her comments suggest that carbon markets are the most effective way to provide forest management incentives, begging the question: why not propose a program that lets small forest owners aggregate their acreage and participate in the offset markets along with larger forest owners? This might save the Department of Agriculture the trouble of re-creating the wheel, since markets have already developed standards and protocols for offset projects. Turns out, in fact, the markets have already thought of that, and there are many organizations registered as aggregators of small offset (and renewable energy) projects. (An EPA report (pdf) describes how aggregators work with the Chicago Climate Exchange – see page 10 for a helpful flow-chart.) In the end, the incentives in Shaheen's legislation may actually be an attempt to address a different but related issue: carbon offset prices that are too low to adequately incentivize small forest owners to participate in the market through an aggregator.
Earlier this week, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) introduced legislation that would establish a system of incentive payments to qualifying forest-land owners who create permanent conservation easements or agree to undertake certain forest-management techniques to maximize the amount of carbon sequestered by their trees.
In introducing the bill, Sen. Shaheen pointed out that NH is the second most forested state in the nation (Maine is the first) and noted that while large forest owners have the opportunity to achieve carbon offset goals by participating in carbon offset markets, family and smaller landowners usually lack the efficiencies of scale to handle the substantial transactional costs that go along with market participation. (For example, the Chicago Climate Exchange requires forestry management offset projects to go through a forestry management practice certification process and to quantify annual carbon sequestration through modeling or annual inventory.)
According to Sen. Shaheen, if conserved and managed properly, our forests could capture up to 20% of US carbon emissions, so it makes sense to provide some incentives to property owners to do so. And since more than half of private forestland is privately owned in parcels of 100 acres or less, it makes sense to provide incentives to small property owners. (New Hampshire law affords a similar incentive to small renewable energy generators by allowing behind-the-meter renewable generation--and even solar hot water heaters--to generate RECs, starting in 2010.)
Whether Sen. Shaheen’s bill ultimately succeeds is anyone’s guess, though it has garnered the support of a broad spectrum of organizations, from conservation organizations like the Trust for Public Land to timber industry organizations like the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association. But her comments suggest that carbon markets are the most effective way to provide forest management incentives, begging the question: why not propose a program that lets small forest owners aggregate their acreage and participate in the offset markets along with larger forest owners? This might save the Department of Agriculture the trouble of re-creating the wheel, since markets have already developed standards and protocols for offset projects. Turns out, in fact, the markets have already thought of that, and there are many organizations registered as aggregators of small offset (and renewable energy) projects. (An EPA report (pdf) describes how aggregators work with the Chicago Climate Exchange – see page 10 for a helpful flow-chart.) In the end, the incentives in Shaheen's legislation may actually be an attempt to address a different but related issue: carbon offset prices that are too low to adequately incentivize small forest owners to participate in the market through an aggregator.
Sustainability Index will include carbon
When Walmart made its much-ballyhooed announcement last month that it would launch a Sustainability Index, one key part of that announcement got short shrift. The retail giant also announced the creation of a Sustainability Consortium, a group of academics and others with the ambitious agenda of "establishing the scientific standards to measure the sustainability of consumer products."
With Walmart and the Index at least temporarily out of the spotlight, I decided to look into the Consortium to understand what it was all about. My interest in doing so was piqued by inquiries from sustainability executives at several large companies who wanted my take on the Consortium and whether they should join.
An initial look at the Consortium raised a number of questions. For starters, I was intrigued that major consumer product companies were paying to join a consortium whose principal purpose was to set the standards by which these companies' products would be judged. Was this some kind of fox-and-henhouse charade? Moreover, membership isn't cheap. The Consortium is asking "founding members" to pay between $50,000 and $250,000 a year for three years, with lower membership levels at $25,000 for smaller firms with fewer than 500 employees and $10,000 for government and nongovernmental organizations -- each with a three-year commitment. Each membership category offers its own combination of benefits, all contained the group's a membership application (Download - PDF).
So, what's really going on here? What do companies get for their money?
To find out, I interviewed the Consortium's co-directors, Dr. Jay S. Golden, from School of Sustainability at Arizona State University, and Dr. Jon Johnson, from the Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas. Their two schools are co-conveners of the Consortium.
Johnson and Golden started with a little history. The Consortium idea emerged about a year ago as Walmart gathered groups of experts to help further its own sustainability goals. "The idea of quantifying sustainability of products arose," explained Golden. "We were thinking about what kind of body could make that come to life. It became very clear to us that no one researcher, no one institution, could do that because you're dealing with geographies around the world and with various sciences -- physical, life, and engineering -- and that required a multidisciplinary approach. So we outlined a proposal to Walmart to develop a consortium of academic researchers from institutions to think through the process and try to bring it to life based on the best available sound science and engineering principles available."
It's important to note that the 15-question supplier assessment that Walmart recently introduced to evaluate companies is not part of the Consortium's work. Rather, the Consortium's mandate is to focus on how to evaluate products, which Walmart hopes will become the basis for standards, ratings, or other product-level evaluations that it would use in its stores. (The company has suggested the product ratings might hit store shelves in about five years, but it's become clear to me that no one really has a firm grip on a reliable timeline.) Walmart has stated that it is hoping other retailers will adopt the standards, and that the eventual standards be "owned" independently, at an appropriate nonprofit, university, or other entity.
To create the product standards, the Consortium is relying on lifecycle modeling, a complex and heretofore costly methodology that, as I recently wrote, seems to be undergoing a renaissance. Creating the full complement of lifecycle-based standards that address the mind-boggling array of products that Walmart and other retailers carry -- apparel, baby products, electronics, groceries, jewelry, pharmaceuticals, toys, and much more -- is the Herculean task the Consortium is undertaking. Accomplishing this will require a vast number of people ... and vast sums of money.
Which is where membership comes in. Already, more than a dozen companies have ponied up, including Cargill, Clorox, Dial, Earth Friendly Products, General Mills, Henkel, Monsanto, Pepsico, Procter & Gamble, SC Johnson, Seventh Generation, TetraPak, Tyson, Unilever, Walmart, and Waste Management.
Jay Golden explained the core of the group's activities. First, there's the foundational research. "We're trying to put the right science, the right data, and the right metrics in there," and then place the data into an open-source system for all to use. "Think of it almost as Linux," he said. The group is developing a tool called Earthster, a sophisticated open platform for making lifecycle assessment easier, faster, and cheaper, in part by pooling existing databases and models, then tapping the larger community to share data, research, and results.
Another facet of the Consortium's work involves understanding consumers and how to effectively communicate to them information about the sustainability attributes of a wide range of products and sectors. "How do you bring coherence and harmonization to these different efforts?" asks Golden.
So, will Consortium members get special access to the lifecycle databases and consumer research? No, the Consortium's work will be open to all. Johnson and Golden repeatedly emphasized that the Consortium will be fully transparent about its activities. (You already can find every presentation, white paper, and meeting summary to date on the group's website.) Says Johnson: "Transparent is a word that Jay and I use probably fifty times a day these days."
What, then, does membership in the Sustainability Consortium offer?
The best case Johnson and Golden could make was that participating companies will gain a great deal of knowledge by being at the table where the hard work of developing standards is being done. "I think it is safe to say that a company that is engaged in the process and is sponsoring research that explores lifecycles that are relevant to that company -- they are probably in a better position to learn from the process," explained Johnson. "There's a lot of benefit to being in the room and being involved in the research that goes beyond the published results." As such, he explained, participating companies will be better able to put the information and systems to use, "whereas companies that are waiting on the sidelines to see what happens are going to be on their heels."
What about some of the other membership benefits being offered, such as seats on advisory councils and sector working committees, invitations to various workshops and meetings, updates via newsletters and publications? Will nonmembers be deprived of such things?
Not really. Everything will be public, though Golden and Johnson suggested that paying members will get guaranteed slots or preferential seating at meetings, while nonmembers will have to queue up on a space-available basis.
Having delved into all this, I'm still not entirely sure I understand the real value proposition of membership in the Sustainability Consortium. The part about the learnings one might derive from being at the table is certainly valid, and that could well be worth the membership fees for some companies. Beyond that, membership seems to be primarily about supporting the Consortium's important work -- in a word: philanthropy.
And that brings us back to the question of propriety. While I don't doubt for a second the sincerity or integrity of Johnson, Golden, and their colleagues, and their stated intention of avoiding conflicts and pursuing transparency, I'm concerned about the optics of it all: the perception that major manufacturers are helping to create the methodologies or otherwise set the rules of rating products, presumably to their advantage. And I worry that this perception could undermine the reputation of the work the group will undertake.
The one thing I learned for certain about the Consortium -- and, for that matter, about all of the sustainability rating initiatives Walmart has put into play -- is that they are as amorphous as they are ambitious. That is, their design and execution, not to mention their timetables, remain very fluid. One hopes that as these initiatives take shape and gain traction, their leaders will take exceptional care to ensure that their work will be unassailable. Anything less, I'm afraid, will be seen by the public as unacceptable, or worse.
With Walmart and the Index at least temporarily out of the spotlight, I decided to look into the Consortium to understand what it was all about. My interest in doing so was piqued by inquiries from sustainability executives at several large companies who wanted my take on the Consortium and whether they should join.
An initial look at the Consortium raised a number of questions. For starters, I was intrigued that major consumer product companies were paying to join a consortium whose principal purpose was to set the standards by which these companies' products would be judged. Was this some kind of fox-and-henhouse charade? Moreover, membership isn't cheap. The Consortium is asking "founding members" to pay between $50,000 and $250,000 a year for three years, with lower membership levels at $25,000 for smaller firms with fewer than 500 employees and $10,000 for government and nongovernmental organizations -- each with a three-year commitment. Each membership category offers its own combination of benefits, all contained the group's a membership application (Download - PDF).
So, what's really going on here? What do companies get for their money?
To find out, I interviewed the Consortium's co-directors, Dr. Jay S. Golden, from School of Sustainability at Arizona State University, and Dr. Jon Johnson, from the Sam M. Walton College of Business at the University of Arkansas. Their two schools are co-conveners of the Consortium.
Johnson and Golden started with a little history. The Consortium idea emerged about a year ago as Walmart gathered groups of experts to help further its own sustainability goals. "The idea of quantifying sustainability of products arose," explained Golden. "We were thinking about what kind of body could make that come to life. It became very clear to us that no one researcher, no one institution, could do that because you're dealing with geographies around the world and with various sciences -- physical, life, and engineering -- and that required a multidisciplinary approach. So we outlined a proposal to Walmart to develop a consortium of academic researchers from institutions to think through the process and try to bring it to life based on the best available sound science and engineering principles available."
It's important to note that the 15-question supplier assessment that Walmart recently introduced to evaluate companies is not part of the Consortium's work. Rather, the Consortium's mandate is to focus on how to evaluate products, which Walmart hopes will become the basis for standards, ratings, or other product-level evaluations that it would use in its stores. (The company has suggested the product ratings might hit store shelves in about five years, but it's become clear to me that no one really has a firm grip on a reliable timeline.) Walmart has stated that it is hoping other retailers will adopt the standards, and that the eventual standards be "owned" independently, at an appropriate nonprofit, university, or other entity.
To create the product standards, the Consortium is relying on lifecycle modeling, a complex and heretofore costly methodology that, as I recently wrote, seems to be undergoing a renaissance. Creating the full complement of lifecycle-based standards that address the mind-boggling array of products that Walmart and other retailers carry -- apparel, baby products, electronics, groceries, jewelry, pharmaceuticals, toys, and much more -- is the Herculean task the Consortium is undertaking. Accomplishing this will require a vast number of people ... and vast sums of money.
Which is where membership comes in. Already, more than a dozen companies have ponied up, including Cargill, Clorox, Dial, Earth Friendly Products, General Mills, Henkel, Monsanto, Pepsico, Procter & Gamble, SC Johnson, Seventh Generation, TetraPak, Tyson, Unilever, Walmart, and Waste Management.
Jay Golden explained the core of the group's activities. First, there's the foundational research. "We're trying to put the right science, the right data, and the right metrics in there," and then place the data into an open-source system for all to use. "Think of it almost as Linux," he said. The group is developing a tool called Earthster, a sophisticated open platform for making lifecycle assessment easier, faster, and cheaper, in part by pooling existing databases and models, then tapping the larger community to share data, research, and results.
Another facet of the Consortium's work involves understanding consumers and how to effectively communicate to them information about the sustainability attributes of a wide range of products and sectors. "How do you bring coherence and harmonization to these different efforts?" asks Golden.
So, will Consortium members get special access to the lifecycle databases and consumer research? No, the Consortium's work will be open to all. Johnson and Golden repeatedly emphasized that the Consortium will be fully transparent about its activities. (You already can find every presentation, white paper, and meeting summary to date on the group's website.) Says Johnson: "Transparent is a word that Jay and I use probably fifty times a day these days."
What, then, does membership in the Sustainability Consortium offer?
The best case Johnson and Golden could make was that participating companies will gain a great deal of knowledge by being at the table where the hard work of developing standards is being done. "I think it is safe to say that a company that is engaged in the process and is sponsoring research that explores lifecycles that are relevant to that company -- they are probably in a better position to learn from the process," explained Johnson. "There's a lot of benefit to being in the room and being involved in the research that goes beyond the published results." As such, he explained, participating companies will be better able to put the information and systems to use, "whereas companies that are waiting on the sidelines to see what happens are going to be on their heels."
What about some of the other membership benefits being offered, such as seats on advisory councils and sector working committees, invitations to various workshops and meetings, updates via newsletters and publications? Will nonmembers be deprived of such things?
Not really. Everything will be public, though Golden and Johnson suggested that paying members will get guaranteed slots or preferential seating at meetings, while nonmembers will have to queue up on a space-available basis.
Having delved into all this, I'm still not entirely sure I understand the real value proposition of membership in the Sustainability Consortium. The part about the learnings one might derive from being at the table is certainly valid, and that could well be worth the membership fees for some companies. Beyond that, membership seems to be primarily about supporting the Consortium's important work -- in a word: philanthropy.
And that brings us back to the question of propriety. While I don't doubt for a second the sincerity or integrity of Johnson, Golden, and their colleagues, and their stated intention of avoiding conflicts and pursuing transparency, I'm concerned about the optics of it all: the perception that major manufacturers are helping to create the methodologies or otherwise set the rules of rating products, presumably to their advantage. And I worry that this perception could undermine the reputation of the work the group will undertake.
The one thing I learned for certain about the Consortium -- and, for that matter, about all of the sustainability rating initiatives Walmart has put into play -- is that they are as amorphous as they are ambitious. That is, their design and execution, not to mention their timetables, remain very fluid. One hopes that as these initiatives take shape and gain traction, their leaders will take exceptional care to ensure that their work will be unassailable. Anything less, I'm afraid, will be seen by the public as unacceptable, or worse.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
VANCOUVER, Aug. 11 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - Carbon Friendly Solutions Inc. (TSX Venture Exchange: CFQ - News; "CFS" or the "Company") (http://www.carbonfriendly.com) is pleased to announce its wholly-owned subsidiary Global CO2 Reduction Inc. has initiated its Northern Ontario Pilot Project (the "Project"). CFS has completed planting 92,000 Jack pine seedlings on 40 hectares of land during stage one of its first North American reforestation project, in coordination with Trees for Clean Air (TFCA). The total land in the Project area is 45 hectares. CFS in cooperation with TFCA will plant the remaining 5 hectares with fast-growing willows in mid-August 2009, during stage two of the Project.
On July 24, 2009, Steve Clark, VP Operations, helped launch CFS's first forestry offset project in Kapuskasing, Ontario, Canada, during the ribbon-cutting ceremony at the Project site and later during the opening ceremony to the Kapuskasing Heritage Festival, where Steve helped kick off as an honoured guest. The Project has received remarkable community support, as well as support from Kapuskasing Mayor Alan Spacek and the Town Council. The Northern Times newspaper has published several articles about the Project. Their latest article about the Project launch is at www.kapuskasingtimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1687062.
Rainforest Alliance, an organization accredited to conduct audits and verifications based on the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) design standards, will be completing its on-site audit of the Project in mid-August 2009, and CFS is confident that the Project will be the first forestry offset project in Canada to be CCBA-accepted, as well as the first project in Canada to be successfully validated to CCBA design standards.
On July 21, 2009, CFS submitted an updated Project Design Document (PDD) to Rainforest Alliance, the independent auditor, in response to their preliminary validation assessment that was completed on July 7, 2009, in preparation for the on-site audit of the Project in mid-August 2009. By the end of August, CFS anticipates the Project will earn CCBA validation by the end of August 2009. CFS anticipates that nearly 20,000 high-quality carbon credits, validated to CCBA standards, will be generated from the Project and will be sold in the Voluntary Market by late summer.
The Project is located in the City of Kapuskasing, in northern Ontario. The land was leased by CFS from the City of Kapuskasing. In accordance to the terms of the lease agreement, the trees will continue to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the Project area for a minimum of 100 years.
About CCBA
The Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) is a partnership between leading companies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and research institutions seeking to promote integrated solutions to land management around the world. With this goal in mind, the CCBA has developed voluntary standards to help design and identify land management projects that simultaneously minimize climate change, support sustainable development and conserve biodiversity. Website address http://www.climate-standards.org/index.html
About Trees for Clean Air
Trees for Clean Air Inc. (TFCA) is a reforestation and afforestation company that specializes in customized silviculture services for individuals and companies that want to offset carbon emissions. The company provides high-quality trees, expert planting, and tree cultivation services to achieve the clients target survival and growth rates. TFCA is incorporated under the laws of Ontario, Canada and is solely owned by Julie Culverhouse, a Registered Professional Engineer.
About Carbon Friendly Solutions Inc.
Carbon Friendly Solutions Inc. (CFS) is a project proponent that provides solutions for companies, organizations and individuals looking to reduce or offset their global warming impact caused by greenhouse gas emissions while including the generation of carbon credits for sale in the global Voluntary and Compliance markets. Through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Global CO2 Reduction Inc. and CO2 Reduction Poland Sp. z.o.o., CFS is focusing on removing and offsetting carbon dioxide emissions from the completion of reforestation, biomass energy and renewable energy technology projects that are independently validated and verified to globally recognized standards and methodologies.
On July 24, 2009, Steve Clark, VP Operations, helped launch CFS's first forestry offset project in Kapuskasing, Ontario, Canada, during the ribbon-cutting ceremony at the Project site and later during the opening ceremony to the Kapuskasing Heritage Festival, where Steve helped kick off as an honoured guest. The Project has received remarkable community support, as well as support from Kapuskasing Mayor Alan Spacek and the Town Council. The Northern Times newspaper has published several articles about the Project. Their latest article about the Project launch is at www.kapuskasingtimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1687062.
Rainforest Alliance, an organization accredited to conduct audits and verifications based on the Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) design standards, will be completing its on-site audit of the Project in mid-August 2009, and CFS is confident that the Project will be the first forestry offset project in Canada to be CCBA-accepted, as well as the first project in Canada to be successfully validated to CCBA design standards.
On July 21, 2009, CFS submitted an updated Project Design Document (PDD) to Rainforest Alliance, the independent auditor, in response to their preliminary validation assessment that was completed on July 7, 2009, in preparation for the on-site audit of the Project in mid-August 2009. By the end of August, CFS anticipates the Project will earn CCBA validation by the end of August 2009. CFS anticipates that nearly 20,000 high-quality carbon credits, validated to CCBA standards, will be generated from the Project and will be sold in the Voluntary Market by late summer.
The Project is located in the City of Kapuskasing, in northern Ontario. The land was leased by CFS from the City of Kapuskasing. In accordance to the terms of the lease agreement, the trees will continue to sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the Project area for a minimum of 100 years.
About CCBA
The Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) is a partnership between leading companies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and research institutions seeking to promote integrated solutions to land management around the world. With this goal in mind, the CCBA has developed voluntary standards to help design and identify land management projects that simultaneously minimize climate change, support sustainable development and conserve biodiversity. Website address http://www.climate-standards.org/index.html
About Trees for Clean Air
Trees for Clean Air Inc. (TFCA) is a reforestation and afforestation company that specializes in customized silviculture services for individuals and companies that want to offset carbon emissions. The company provides high-quality trees, expert planting, and tree cultivation services to achieve the clients target survival and growth rates. TFCA is incorporated under the laws of Ontario, Canada and is solely owned by Julie Culverhouse, a Registered Professional Engineer.
About Carbon Friendly Solutions Inc.
Carbon Friendly Solutions Inc. (CFS) is a project proponent that provides solutions for companies, organizations and individuals looking to reduce or offset their global warming impact caused by greenhouse gas emissions while including the generation of carbon credits for sale in the global Voluntary and Compliance markets. Through its wholly owned subsidiaries, Global CO2 Reduction Inc. and CO2 Reduction Poland Sp. z.o.o., CFS is focusing on removing and offsetting carbon dioxide emissions from the completion of reforestation, biomass energy and renewable energy technology projects that are independently validated and verified to globally recognized standards and methodologies.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Proactive planting project underway at Surmont site
CAROL CHRISTIAN
Today staff
Giving Mother Nature a helping hand, seedlings planting began last Wednesday at ConocoPhillips’ Surmont site as the company gets underway with its Faster Forests program, an accelerated reclamation program set to become standard operating procedure.
Under current legislation, companies are only required to re-seed land reclaimed with a grass mix species, but it can take dozens of years before natural tree growth returns and the site is restored naturally. The Faster Forests program recovers the forest ecosystem more proactively.
“What we’re trying to do is simply accelerate the reclamation cycle,” explained Peter Zimmerman, manager of environment and stakeholder engagement for oilsands. “So rather than have a site that might take five or 10 years before you start to get little seedlings established and grow, we’re trying to do that right out of the gate.”
Lands to be planted this year are all delineation drilling well sites, all about a half hectare in size.
ConocoPhillips turned to Outland Resources, a cross-Canada company offering silviculture services — the branch of forestry dealing with the development and care of forests — to Alberta’s forest and oil industries.
They also retained Al-Pac to supply the trees: commercial stock, and mostly aspens for this inaugural planting, although ConocoPhillips is also awaiting delivery of white spruce.
“It’s in the future that we are wanting to move to using different kinds of species that would be more than just commercial timber species that could be used for habitat enhancement or might be of interest for traditional use by First Nations,” Zimmerman said.
Some 30 areas on the Surmont lease, a joint venture with Total about 35 kilometres south of Fort McMurray, have been identified for this program, partly because of the number of trees available. Some of the sites earmarked for planting this year by ConocoPhillips were disturbed a year or two ago, while others will be from this past year.
This planting is expected to last up to two weeks with two or three sites planted a day, depending on how far apart they are. This way, planters are taking advantage of optimal planting time in July.
“You pretty well have to plant (in) late June, July. You can plant in the fall and we might chose to do that on some sites that might have access issues, but I understand that the mortality of the trees in the fall is a little bit higher. You get better success if you do it in the spring.”
The technical foundation for this program was borne from a 10-year University of Alberta study being funded by ConocoPhillips with a number of other organizations. At the midway point last year, the university released a report with a number of recommendations to accelerate the reclamation period.
Zimmerman explained Faster Forests is important because there are two dimensions to surface disturbance: the area disturbed, and the length of time that disturbance remains on the ground.
“So we kind of think that in terms of hectare years: how many hectares are disturbed over what time period,” Zimmerman said.
“You can reduce your footprint in kind of two ways. You can try to shrink the area you that you’re using and we’re looking at ways to try do that,” he said, citing the possibility of such measures as smaller well pads and skinnier pipelines. “But you come up to a point that you can’t reduce that anymore.
“The other thing you can do is try to recover your disturbance quicker … and that is the aspect of Faster Forests that we’re really focusing on right now, so we’re trying to decrease the cycle time of the reclamation.”
cchristian@fortmcmurraytoday.com
Today staff
Giving Mother Nature a helping hand, seedlings planting began last Wednesday at ConocoPhillips’ Surmont site as the company gets underway with its Faster Forests program, an accelerated reclamation program set to become standard operating procedure.
Under current legislation, companies are only required to re-seed land reclaimed with a grass mix species, but it can take dozens of years before natural tree growth returns and the site is restored naturally. The Faster Forests program recovers the forest ecosystem more proactively.
“What we’re trying to do is simply accelerate the reclamation cycle,” explained Peter Zimmerman, manager of environment and stakeholder engagement for oilsands. “So rather than have a site that might take five or 10 years before you start to get little seedlings established and grow, we’re trying to do that right out of the gate.”
Lands to be planted this year are all delineation drilling well sites, all about a half hectare in size.
ConocoPhillips turned to Outland Resources, a cross-Canada company offering silviculture services — the branch of forestry dealing with the development and care of forests — to Alberta’s forest and oil industries.
They also retained Al-Pac to supply the trees: commercial stock, and mostly aspens for this inaugural planting, although ConocoPhillips is also awaiting delivery of white spruce.
“It’s in the future that we are wanting to move to using different kinds of species that would be more than just commercial timber species that could be used for habitat enhancement or might be of interest for traditional use by First Nations,” Zimmerman said.
Some 30 areas on the Surmont lease, a joint venture with Total about 35 kilometres south of Fort McMurray, have been identified for this program, partly because of the number of trees available. Some of the sites earmarked for planting this year by ConocoPhillips were disturbed a year or two ago, while others will be from this past year.
This planting is expected to last up to two weeks with two or three sites planted a day, depending on how far apart they are. This way, planters are taking advantage of optimal planting time in July.
“You pretty well have to plant (in) late June, July. You can plant in the fall and we might chose to do that on some sites that might have access issues, but I understand that the mortality of the trees in the fall is a little bit higher. You get better success if you do it in the spring.”
The technical foundation for this program was borne from a 10-year University of Alberta study being funded by ConocoPhillips with a number of other organizations. At the midway point last year, the university released a report with a number of recommendations to accelerate the reclamation period.
Zimmerman explained Faster Forests is important because there are two dimensions to surface disturbance: the area disturbed, and the length of time that disturbance remains on the ground.
“So we kind of think that in terms of hectare years: how many hectares are disturbed over what time period,” Zimmerman said.
“You can reduce your footprint in kind of two ways. You can try to shrink the area you that you’re using and we’re looking at ways to try do that,” he said, citing the possibility of such measures as smaller well pads and skinnier pipelines. “But you come up to a point that you can’t reduce that anymore.
“The other thing you can do is try to recover your disturbance quicker … and that is the aspect of Faster Forests that we’re really focusing on right now, so we’re trying to decrease the cycle time of the reclamation.”
cchristian@fortmcmurraytoday.com
MXenergy Reaches Carbon Neutrality Through Purchase of Forestry Offsets
STAMFORD, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--MXenergy announced today that it has offset the greenhouse gas emissions associated with its national operations as part of the company’s ongoing commitment to reduce its environmental impact.
As part of its membership in the Chicago Climate Exchange, MXenergy has identified its annual carbon emissions of about 1,000 tonnes and has retired the same amount of emission reduction credits to make its national operations carbon neutral.
“MXenergy voluntarily offset the emissions associated with our multiple office spaces, air and road travel and other business operations as part of our company commitment to address climate change,” said MXenergy CEO Jeffrey Mayer. “We are committed to doing more than our share to fight global warming and encourage other businesses to come forward and do the same.”
MXenergy became a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange to take part in its voluntary cap-and-trade system offered to global businesses. As a member, MXenergy made a legally binding commitment to fully offset its emissions on an annual basis. After accounting and verifying its carbon footprint through CCX MXXenergy offsets the emissions.
MXenergy retired carbon offsets that were generated from CCX-registered afforestation projects in Illinois. MXenergy purchased and retired the offsets equal to its annual emissions from a project that plants hardwood and softwood trees on former cropland across more than 2,981 acres. Trees naturally sequester carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and the project was created with the sole purpose of creating a permanent solution for sequestering greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond addressing the emissions associated with business operations, MXenergy encourages its employees to reduce consumption of resources through smart energy and transportation management.
As a national supplier of natural gas and electricity with more than 500,000 customers across the nation, MXenergy is committed to working with customers on reducing their environmental impact. The company offers a program for customers to offset the emissions associated with their utility purchases. In 2007 MXenergy launched the Earth Friendly Partnership for customers to join the fight against global warming, enabling them to make their homes and businesses carbon-neutral by also purchasing CCX afforestation offsets Customers who join the partnership pay only a fraction of a penny more for power service, with MXenergy subsidizing the balance.
About MXenergy
MXenergy is one of the fastest-growing retail natural gas and electricity suppliers in North America, serving approximately 500,000 customers in 39 utility territories in the United States and Canada. Founded in 1999 to provide natural gas and electricity to consumers in deregulated energy markets, MXenergy helps residential customers and small business owners control their energy bills by providing both fixed and variable rate plans. MXenergy is committed to best practices in environmental conservation. MXenergy is a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange and an Energy Star Partner. More information can be found at www.mxenergy.com.
About Chicago Climate Exchange
Chicago Climate Exchange, Inc. is owned by Climate Exchange plc a publicly traded company listed on the AIM division of the London Stock Exchange (CLE.L). CCX, which began trading in 2003, is the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding, rules-based greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading system, as well as the world’s only global system for emissions trading based on all six greenhouse gases.
Contacts
MXenergyTodd Miller, 203-378-1152 ext. 149tmiller@cjpcom.co
As part of its membership in the Chicago Climate Exchange, MXenergy has identified its annual carbon emissions of about 1,000 tonnes and has retired the same amount of emission reduction credits to make its national operations carbon neutral.
“MXenergy voluntarily offset the emissions associated with our multiple office spaces, air and road travel and other business operations as part of our company commitment to address climate change,” said MXenergy CEO Jeffrey Mayer. “We are committed to doing more than our share to fight global warming and encourage other businesses to come forward and do the same.”
MXenergy became a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange to take part in its voluntary cap-and-trade system offered to global businesses. As a member, MXenergy made a legally binding commitment to fully offset its emissions on an annual basis. After accounting and verifying its carbon footprint through CCX MXXenergy offsets the emissions.
MXenergy retired carbon offsets that were generated from CCX-registered afforestation projects in Illinois. MXenergy purchased and retired the offsets equal to its annual emissions from a project that plants hardwood and softwood trees on former cropland across more than 2,981 acres. Trees naturally sequester carbon dioxide through photosynthesis and the project was created with the sole purpose of creating a permanent solution for sequestering greenhouse gas emissions. Beyond addressing the emissions associated with business operations, MXenergy encourages its employees to reduce consumption of resources through smart energy and transportation management.
As a national supplier of natural gas and electricity with more than 500,000 customers across the nation, MXenergy is committed to working with customers on reducing their environmental impact. The company offers a program for customers to offset the emissions associated with their utility purchases. In 2007 MXenergy launched the Earth Friendly Partnership for customers to join the fight against global warming, enabling them to make their homes and businesses carbon-neutral by also purchasing CCX afforestation offsets Customers who join the partnership pay only a fraction of a penny more for power service, with MXenergy subsidizing the balance.
About MXenergy
MXenergy is one of the fastest-growing retail natural gas and electricity suppliers in North America, serving approximately 500,000 customers in 39 utility territories in the United States and Canada. Founded in 1999 to provide natural gas and electricity to consumers in deregulated energy markets, MXenergy helps residential customers and small business owners control their energy bills by providing both fixed and variable rate plans. MXenergy is committed to best practices in environmental conservation. MXenergy is a member of the Chicago Climate Exchange and an Energy Star Partner. More information can be found at www.mxenergy.com.
About Chicago Climate Exchange
Chicago Climate Exchange, Inc. is owned by Climate Exchange plc a publicly traded company listed on the AIM division of the London Stock Exchange (CLE.L). CCX, which began trading in 2003, is the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding, rules-based greenhouse gas emissions allowance trading system, as well as the world’s only global system for emissions trading based on all six greenhouse gases.
Contacts
MXenergyTodd Miller, 203-378-1152 ext. 149tmiller@cjpcom.co
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Climate-change survey focuses responses from ag and forestryBy
COOKSON BEECHER
Capital Press
June 6, 2009
The results of a climate-change survey focusing on input from ag, forestry and other interests is now available online.The survey is the result of a climate-change questionnaire crafted in March by the U.S. House Agriculture Committee and sent to more than 400 ag- and forestry-related organizations.More than 200 organizations responded, with replies coming from a diverse group including commodity, conservation, forestry, research, energy, business and nonprofit interests as well as the public.The compilation of the survey results, which includes answers to 29 questions, runs to more than 2,500 pages.Among the responders were the American Nursery and Landscape Association, the Chicago Climate Exchange, the Association of Consulting Foresters of America, Defenders of Wildlife, the California Association of Wine Grape Growers, the California Farm Bureau, California Citrus Mutual, Cargill Inc., Oregon State University Extension Service, National Grain and Feed Association, National Meat Association, National Organic Coalition, Western United Dairymen, Western Growers and Washington state's Ecology and Natural Resources departments.According to a letter from House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-MN, that went along with the questionnaire, farmers, ranchers and forest landowners have been participating in agricultural programs that reduce carbon for years.The questionnaire's goal, he said, was to identify ways that these practices could be recognized and incorporated into climate-change legislation. The letter also pointed out that Congress is poised to consider a range of options to reduce greenhouse gasses. Two of the options are to mandate or authorize cap and trade programs or to impose a tax or fee on greenhouse emissions.But Peterson also told those who received the questionnaire that some of the proposed legislation would allow producers to receive emission allowances to generate carbon offsets that could be sold under a cap and trade program, and for that reason producers could benefit from a carbon-reduction program.In answering one the questionnaire's first questions, "Should agriculture and forestry sectors be covered under a carbon-reduction program?" Joel Nelson of Citrus Mutual summed up one of the industry's prevailing thoughts about this:"Citrus Mutual is conflicted as to the need for this type of program," he said. "The scientific community is split as to whether global warming and climate change is occurring, and if so, is our climate reverting back to what it once was less than a century ago? We profess to not know the answer to that question, but we acknowledge that some preparedness is warranted in case. For this reason we believe the committee should take small steps towards this effort because there is so much we don't know and because of unintended consequences."In a press release about the survey, Peterson said that the "tremendous response" to the questionnaire reveals the concerns and contributions that the organizations and individuals participating in the survey can offer in the discussion about climate change."The information we received from this survey will help us educate other members of Congress about the potential contribution and impact of climate change legislation on agriculture and rural communities," the congressman sai
Capital Press
June 6, 2009
The results of a climate-change survey focusing on input from ag, forestry and other interests is now available online.The survey is the result of a climate-change questionnaire crafted in March by the U.S. House Agriculture Committee and sent to more than 400 ag- and forestry-related organizations.More than 200 organizations responded, with replies coming from a diverse group including commodity, conservation, forestry, research, energy, business and nonprofit interests as well as the public.The compilation of the survey results, which includes answers to 29 questions, runs to more than 2,500 pages.Among the responders were the American Nursery and Landscape Association, the Chicago Climate Exchange, the Association of Consulting Foresters of America, Defenders of Wildlife, the California Association of Wine Grape Growers, the California Farm Bureau, California Citrus Mutual, Cargill Inc., Oregon State University Extension Service, National Grain and Feed Association, National Meat Association, National Organic Coalition, Western United Dairymen, Western Growers and Washington state's Ecology and Natural Resources departments.According to a letter from House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-MN, that went along with the questionnaire, farmers, ranchers and forest landowners have been participating in agricultural programs that reduce carbon for years.The questionnaire's goal, he said, was to identify ways that these practices could be recognized and incorporated into climate-change legislation. The letter also pointed out that Congress is poised to consider a range of options to reduce greenhouse gasses. Two of the options are to mandate or authorize cap and trade programs or to impose a tax or fee on greenhouse emissions.But Peterson also told those who received the questionnaire that some of the proposed legislation would allow producers to receive emission allowances to generate carbon offsets that could be sold under a cap and trade program, and for that reason producers could benefit from a carbon-reduction program.In answering one the questionnaire's first questions, "Should agriculture and forestry sectors be covered under a carbon-reduction program?" Joel Nelson of Citrus Mutual summed up one of the industry's prevailing thoughts about this:"Citrus Mutual is conflicted as to the need for this type of program," he said. "The scientific community is split as to whether global warming and climate change is occurring, and if so, is our climate reverting back to what it once was less than a century ago? We profess to not know the answer to that question, but we acknowledge that some preparedness is warranted in case. For this reason we believe the committee should take small steps towards this effort because there is so much we don't know and because of unintended consequences."In a press release about the survey, Peterson said that the "tremendous response" to the questionnaire reveals the concerns and contributions that the organizations and individuals participating in the survey can offer in the discussion about climate change."The information we received from this survey will help us educate other members of Congress about the potential contribution and impact of climate change legislation on agriculture and rural communities," the congressman sai
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)